This is proving to be one of the more difficult pieces I have written during my time at CC. The difficulty has not been describing the car itself but rather, filtering through the swirl of thoughts it has prompted. Traveling solo for 215 miles each way does give a person some time to think.

Rental fees for this Cruze were exactly the same those which got me into a shit-bucket Nissan Sentra a few months ago. The Cruze was the antithesis of the Nissan, helping me work toward an answer to a question once posed to me in the comments: is there a new car Jason actually likes? Let’s explore this some.

GM has produced a car that according to my subjective analysis is leagues ahead of the Ford Focus in driver comfort, the Toyota Corolla in powertrain refinement, and the spittoon Sentra in nearly every category imaginable. Apart from a Chevrolet Equinox, this is the only contemporary GM product I have driven in the past three years that was neither a W-body Impala nor a pickup. GM, at least in North America, isn’t dead and their product mojo is heavily pulsating.

image source: www.wikipedia.org

The Cruze was the successor to the forgettable Cobalt, which itself was the replacement to the penalty box (at least in North America) Cavalier.

Evolution of a concept can yield some great results, although 27 years of gestation from Cavalier to Cruze is three eternities in the auto world. Like someone who is determined to breed a bad gene from their lineage, GM has done a great job of breeding the bland and blah out of their compact Cruze.

Before I go too far into this mixed bag of thoughts, it must be stated this particular car was a fluke. Not only was this Cruze equipped in the upscale LTZ trim, it also had the RS appearance package (consisting of a spoiler and slightly different front and rear treatments), along with leather seats and a moonroof. When I returned the car, I asked the clerk if all their Cruze units were equipped as such; he assured me they were not, as this one was an odd duck for them. Frankly, there was a brief moment when I was concerned the extra equipment might have skewed my opinion, similar to extra rum making a rum-and-coke more memorable. But luckily, the equipment level hasn’t created a slam-dunk situation.

The roads I traveled in Illinois were often beleaguered, much worse than in my state of residence, exacerbating the inherent ride choppiness stemming from the P225/45R18 tires. When I saw a few road signs in Illinois stating “Rough Road Next x Miles”, the Cruze managed to find every imperfection in the highway to transmit to my butt.

With the Cruze also being guilty of having a healthy dollop of road noise, the experience on less-than-stellar pavement wasn’t an endearing quality.

For years General Motors forte was building large, comfortable cars. Their repeated attempts at compact cars (Vega, Chevette, Cavalier) revealed either their missing the point or not having their heart in it. The Cruze shatters the paradigm of a compact GM car being as pleasant as a root canal. This car–on the good roads I drove in each state–was quite pleasant and very competent. The Cruze did not handle curves with the greatest aplomb, but it isn’t meant for such things. In its intended purpose of ferrying butts around, it did quite well.

In my review of a Ford Focus, I was admittedly critical of the absurdly large console. So while it seems that consoles are as much a fact of life these days as the internet, constructing them to be fully cooperative with the driver isn’t impossible. While the console may appear intrusive here…

It really wasn’t as I had room to move. I applaud this design. I don’t care if the Cruze is becoming rather mature, it is proof positive a good design doesn’t age quickly.

Another good aspect of the Cruze is its turbocharged 1.4 liter gasoline engine. An admission: I have never driven a car whose engine displacement is so petite. While I have had the misfortune of driving a lot of four-cylinder engines, this 1.4 truly sparkles. Perhaps if more four-bangers had power, smoothness, and pleasant sounds like this 1.4, I would not have such a general lack of patience with the humble four-cylinder.

So is this a new car Jason likes? Yes; whether or not I would consider the purchase of one isn’t an easy answer. A large part of my thought process while having this car was about things extending beyond it. Let me explain why.

I possess a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering. Part of my education, like that of numerous other professions, was ethics-based; in short, it revolved around what I, as an engineer, should and should not do to promote and elevate the safety of others, the profession, and its noble attributes. One facet of this was learning that it is my responsibility to go to any length to correct–or bring attention to–any inferior design or construction method I encounter, as not doing so could potentially cause harm to others.

image source: www.upi.com

Somewhere along the way, various people at General Motors failed to recognize or effectively address a problem with ignition switches. The failure of these switches is highly unfortunate but there could have had a much less detrimental outcome had it been addressed clearly and early. Instead, this known problem was disregarded. For GM management to have ignored the warnings and concerns from various internal sources for as long as they did is incomprehensible. The ignition switch debacle is far from over, but whatever financial penalties result won’t even begin to address the heinous behavior they have demonstrated and the avoidable grief it has caused for many of their customers.

This is occurring relatively soon after GM sought, and received, bailout money by the federal government, a move that has been wildly unpopular with many.

image source: www.forbes.com

The latest CEO in GM’s revolving door is Mary Barra. A second generation GM employee, she seems quite determined to turn things around and from what I have read about her, she is a formidable individual. I sincerely wish her luck and success. General Motors certainly makes a very good product these days, products that are every bit as good as, or better than, the competition.

The Cruze is a very good car and GM is definitely on the upswing. Yet at this point in time, I cannot reconcile the behavior of some in GM management with any willingness to open my wallet.

190 Comments

I have an ECO, and it rides much better than the LTZ, and I think it also feels lighter on its feet also. It seems to hit the sweet spot of the 17″ (vs 18″) wheel/tire combo, the “sport” springs and shocks, but not the “sport” suspension bushings.

I am surprised you liked the engine with the auto transmission hooked to it.

18″ tires are a bit much for a small car like this unless of course you spend most of your time traversing around curvy roads. The 17″ tires on my rental 2LT were more than large enough and didn’t seem as harsh as the 18’s.

What a worthless piece of crap it is. Although, I did enjoy my first 3 months of ownership. My brother bought a Cobalt and had a lot of problems like I had, unfortunately he then replaced that POS with the new Cruze. That thing is worse than the Cobalt. Many of my friends and coworker also have bought GM products and they are all unhappy. The Engineering and quality is total crap. So pal you had a good rental car experience, but I would not recommend any GM products to anyone. Let GM die like they should have.

Thought provoking words, Jason. Like everyone else here, I worship cars in some form or another. And I can be guilty of minimising automotive corporate malfeasance to bypass any cognitive dissonance, but your non-hysterical indictment struck home. This example is not the first, and won’t be the last. Too big to fail.

Very interesting to read. I have not driven anything in this class for quite some time, so your insights are very informative.

Overall, this looks to be a nicely done car. The interior is quite attractive, as is almost all of the outside. I just wish someone at Chevrolet would tell the stylists that it would be OK to walk away from that grille design that is the weakest part of almost everything that has come out of a Chevy showroom in recent years. The Ford 3 bar was attractive, but they gave up on it. This Chevy design is horrid, but they won’t let it go.

This is precisely the class of car I seek out when it’s time to buy, so I’m very glad to know that the Cruze experience was pretty good. I like the Focus’s styling far more, but after spending a week in my dad’s ’12 Focus and not enjoying the cabin one least little bit, I can’t imagine owning one. I’m very happy to know that the Cruze is a viable alternative.

Count me in as a non-fan of that grille. It has always reminded me of a dog with a bone in its teeth. Fortunately, it seems Chevrolet is finally starting to retire that grille, as the new Impala and facelifted Traverse has a much more attractive chrome grille with horizontal bars.

I have a great deal of admiration for the Cruze. It’s smooth and refined, and the little turbocharged mill delivers more power then its numbers would anticipate while delivering decent gas mileage. It took an entire generation, but GM has finally delivered a class-competitive compact in North America. This is a mature car for mature people; the fast and furious crowd need not apply.

Only thing I would change with the next generation would be to add a little more legroom in the rear (It’s tight even by the standards of the class), and perhaps change the design of the rock-hard front buckets.

Oh and well-equipped rentals aren’t exactly as rare as hen’s teeth anymore. About a year ago the Cruze I rented was a 2LT with the RS package, so I think the only thing it was missing in comparison to your LTZ was a sunroof and automatic climate control. Logged 700 miles on that car, and enjoyed every minute.

I take the ignition switch thing with a grain of salt, many of the accidents involving the ignition switches also involve, 1-Alcohol, 2-Young Drivers 3-High Speed, in one of the accidents the “black box” in the car showed that the driver was applying 10 seconds of WOT(wide open throttle) recording a speed of 71mph, on a dirt road, before impacting into a tree? How many other factors are involved in creating a fatal accident? Its it normal to have 5 or 6lbs of crap on your key chain? Are we going to have to mandate key chain weight?

You can only protect people from so much. The fact that this “calamity” hasn’t happened in the majority of cars equipped with this ignition switch shows that its really blown out of proportion. Yes, manufacturers are responsible for designing safe products, but as a consumer, you have to understand that the safe operation of the vehicle is down to the operator. If I have my car full of garbage, and crap rolls under the brake pedal and I can’t stop the car, is the manufacturer responsible because an unsafe condition was caused by the person operating the car?

Yes, I know, I’m big GM apologist, and a everything else you want to slam me with, but if you look at the number of deaths vs cars made and millions of miles driven by those cars, the figures are actually less than other cars. Remember a car crash isn’t like a plane crash where Boeing goes out and investigates combs through the wreckage, when a car is involved in a fatal accident, in many cases the automaker doesn’t know or get involved for the most part, the investigation is handled by local police.

How dare you bring logic to the table! People are not responsible for their own actions when they can blame a larger entity with bigger pockets.

I haven’t read about one accident that can actually be directly attributed to the ignition “problem” (when you look at the facts surrounding the accident). Much like the runaway Audi and Toyota witch hunts, its the media’s self proclaimed “job” to report only want needs to be reported to sensationalize the story.

Of course I’m sure there will be many who are going to slam you and me. Won’t be the first time I’ve been called a heartless bastard.

You guys are embarrassing, sad, and pathetic. And yes, a heartless bastard too. It’s one thing to keep your mouth shut about blatant malfeasance and cover-ups that has directly led to the unnecessary deaths; it’s another thing to giggle and chortle about “the stupid drivers”. I’ve deleted your most embarrassing comments, and I’m going to ask/tell you to just keep it to yourselves, unless you can comment with very specific facts and details, and prove them, in your endless effort to exonerate GM.

Good luck with that, because the facts I’ve seen so far are not on your side. Now go snicker about the dead, dumb drivers somewhere else, not here.

I’ve followed the issue fairly closely. What point are you trying to make with the link to this article? What specific data does it have to exonerate GM and blame the drivers?

Philhawk

Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Paul, are you serious? Did you read the article?

Unbelted, drunk or on drugs, hit by a drunk driver…just to name a few.

These people could have been wrapped in bubble wrap and still wouldn’t have lived. Why don’t be blame the automakers for allowing the drunks to be able to start their cars, or to let the car run without everyone wearing a seatbelt

Of course I’m serious. That’s not a complete analysis of all the accidents and deaths. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter; passive safety devices are just that: passive safety devices, to minimize injury and death regardless of the circumstances.

The ONLY real issue is GM’s unwillingness to respond to obvious patterns of ignition switch failures, and having a part be changed without it getting a new number, etc… The issue of people’s choices is not what’s on the line here. That will always happen, but that’s not what caused the air bags to not deploy, period.

I’m not going to litigate this issue here; Congress and the courts are doing that. It’s obvious that GM is guilty of severe malfeasance; their CEO has essentially admitted it. Why are you trying to argue a completely losing point? GM has admitted guilt, and is paying hundreds of millions in compensation, and will pay a multi-billion dollar fine in the end.

Arguing GM’s culpability is a waste of time. And trying to shift the blame on the drivers is pathetic. I am not going to argue this further with you. It’s also a waste of time. End of this thread. Go to TTAC if you want to to keep this up. You’re at the wrong place.

Philhawk

Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM

Paul
Your argument is pathetic.
I agree GM is not off the hook for this, but to even consider that the drivers are not responsible for any part of these accidents is jumping right on the media bandwagon.

You asked for sources, I gave you sources and then you say it isn’t good enough. Obviously there is never a discussion worth having with you since you are always right and never able to see two sides to anything. You go right a head and take any blame away from drunk drivers and the such. Fits right in with the “its not my fault” mentality of the average American these days.

Phil, yes, every driver is responsible for their behavior; there’s no argument about that. Period. We’re in agreement on that.

The point is, this is not about that. This is about an long-standing problem with an ignition switch that GM knew about ages ago, and which has a very nasty habit of turning itself off, both for drunks as well as innocent little old ladies. THAT is the only issue here. It’s happened to many different folks under many different scenarios. Picking out the ones that were driving inappropriately doesn’t impact GM’s overall guilt about what THEY did; their part in the issue.

Yes, young folks will act irresponsibly. But I know you never did, right? Passive safety equipment exists for a reason: to compensate for human being’s intrinsic stupidity. If everyone drove perfectly, we’d never have “accidents”. right? But that argument doesn’t reflect reality. So blaming dumb drivers is not the point here. That’s something you can do in every “accident” 24/7.

This is about engineering and cover ups and poor corporate culture, not about dumb driver. Conflating the two will get you nowhere in trying to assess what exactly GM did or didn’t do wrong. Take them out of the equation, as it’s an irrelevant factor. They’re everywhere, all the time. But not every manufacturer would keep building cars with obviously faulty ignition switches that turn of inappropriately. That’s the issue here.

redmondjp

Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Paul,

If you read the Valukas report that details the initial accidents that brought this issue to light, you will notice one thing – in almost every case, the occupants were unbelted.

You can’t lay all of the blame GM if you don’t even bother to buckle up . . .

Also, if you vehicle collides with a tree at high speed, airbags or not, you’re probably not going to survive.

Philhawk

Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Paul
I sincerely appreciate this response, and…I agree with you mostly.

Yes, I certainly had my moments, probably still do and I know you are also guilty of that. I am in no way defending GM’s extremely poor decision and complete lack of common sense. Can I see how it happened? Absolutely! Should it have happened? Absolutely not.

The problem I have is with the media’s bias reports, much as their bias reports against Toyota and Ford way back when (although I think Ford is probably the most guilty out of the 3 here).

For anyone to say that these switches are directly responsible for these deaths is crazy to me. I have zero sympathy for the drunk/high/unbelted deaths.

I understand your argument about Airbags being passive and need to work, but they are never a substitute for seat belts and aren’t meant to replace them.

I have honestly not read about any accident that can be directly tied to an ignition switch going into the accessory mode. Has it happened, I don’t doubt it. Does it happen on other vehicles? Sure. Are there airbags that don’t go off in cars that are supposedly perfectly operational? Absolutely.

You’re welcome to call me pathetic and heartless etc… I’ll accept the title for not having sympathy for those who chose extremely poorly and didn’t wear a seatbelt and got behind the wheel (or in the car with a driver) drunk or on drugs.

Canucknucklehead

Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:46 PM

When I was working for GM service a decade ago, this issue was well known. Although a relatively simple fix, GM did nothing, since dealers made lots of money fixing them, to the tune of $400 or more each time.

Not fixing it was completely irresponsible. Blaming the victims doesn’t work in 2014. It’s like saying a rape victim “deserved it” due to their choice of attire.

Philhawk

Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Canuc
Come on now. The rape analogy is pretty far out there even for you.

This is 2014, where no one is accountable for their own actions anymore.

Chris M.

Posted August 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM

I don’t know if the “data” supports it but as I have experienced this exact problem, multiple times, while completely sober, I can see how it could cause serious injuries or even deaths. My wife’s 2000 Alero showed this problem as it aged, probably starting in 2008 or so, and the first time it happens it’s *extremely* unsettling. Driving down the road (doing about 70 MPH on Interstate 440 in my case) and the car just cuts off, with no preamble. You lose your power steering, and your brake assist. Thankfully I was on a straight stretch of road in light traffic, and was able to pull off onto the shoulder and get it restarted. Same thing the first time it happened to my wife (she refused to drive the car after that, so it became mine for a while). If the switch decided to flake out when the car was cresting a hill, or around a sharp turn, you might not be able to adjusted to the dramatically higher steering/brake effort before going off the road, crossing the center line, and plowing into someone. Even belted, you have a much better chance walking away from the accident if your air bag deploys, which also doesn’t happen if the car is not running.

So I don’t buy the “everyone who was killed/seriously injured was drunk, high, and/or unbelted” argument. I can have pretty low sympathy for those who injure themselves in a car doing something stupid or negligent, but for this problem to put your life in danger, all you needed to do is to get behind the wheel of a GM car.

I can’t say it’s turned me off to the possibility of ever buying from them, but it does give me pause.

(I’m also still annoyed that I had to rip apart the dash and replace the switch on my own dime and my own labor, as the media firestorm was several years away, when this should have been recalled well before.)

Yes Carmine…all excellent points – but they still knew there was an issue.

And if for no other reason than to save face, they should have nipped it in the bud then and there.

That said, I’ll go to my grave believing Ford was never fully held accountable for faulty design in the first-gen Explorer. And if issues the past decade with Toyotas had happened with GMs, GM would be defunct.

I’ve written much in these comments excoriating the General over past mistakes, but over the past decade they’ve had more hits than misses and today seem to have regained the mojo they had in the ’30s, 40s and 50’s, building vehicles you can actually be proud of owning.

It was a joyous day for me when my wife came back to Chevrolet after three Subarus. We love her ’11 Equinox LTZ. And after an upcoming review of our corporation’s finances with the accountant, I’ll be looking to replace my 294,000 mile ’97 Blazer. If a lease puts us in the best tax situation, I’ll be shopping Chevy first with no reservations.

All of your points are valid, except for the generic term “Young Driver.” If you replace that with “Irresponsible Driver”, I’m with you, but we are all young and INEXPERIENCED once, just a fact of human biology.

The summary of the GM case is that GM determined that the switch didn’t meet THEIR standards, they farted around for years, finally updated the part, and didn’t change the part number in an effort to sweep the issue under the rug. I like Jason’s engineer ethics point, and it seems pretty clear to me that GM failed to adhere to the ethics noted.

I’m not a guy to sue, and fully understand cars wear out and things go wrong. I’ve had two instances of “unintended acceleration.” My ’76 Cutlass’ carb went bad suddenly, and the engine locked in at high RPM in a parking lot. I modulated the car with the brake pedal, drove it to my mechanic (young and inexperienced!), and had the 8 year old carb rebuilt.

I had a slightly different attitude with my 2005 Ford Freestyle. At year 3.5, with about 37,000 miles, and just out of warranty, the car would surge and move forward in low speed (parking lot) conditions on hot days. The surge wasn’t exactly a leap forward, but when you are only a foot away from the car in front of you in a parking stall, space is limited. If I had been drunk and stupid or inexperienced, maybe I’d have been parking with someone standing between the two cars. I wasn’t, there wasn’t, I was in control, and NOTHING happened.

I took the car to the dealer and he told me: 1) $700.00 for a new Throttle Body Control Module (TCM), 2) All of these cars are having this problem, so parts are a few weeks out. 3) You’re going on vacation? I suggest you rent a car.

So, I was out about $1,100 with the rental. I did some research, and the problem is indeed common. TCM cleaning or replacement was recommended. I found a NHTSA website, and added a complaint to the long list of similar complaints against the early Ford D3 platform cars.

NHTSA opened an investigation, and eventually pushed Ford into a recall. Because I had paid for the repair, Ford cut me a check for $700.00. I was also offered a free cleaning, which I took advantage of as the car was acting up again at year six.

I didn’t panic, I still have the car, and realize my next car could have any sort of problem, it just happens. Heck, I bought a Ford F-150 in 2012. Still, I have first hand experience with a manufacturer ignoring an obvious problem until someone pushed them into action. In an era of sensationalism about “unintended acceleration” problems, I’m amazed Ford didn’t get excoriated for this one.

Oh, I agree, sometimes I’m surprised I made it past 23. There is a reason that the ages of 16-21 are some of the most expensive insurance groups and one of the age groups with the largest instances of fatalities.

Going through the young years right now. My insurance agent told me that young drivers improve dramatically each year they are on the road. The rate for my daughter, if her record stays clean, will go down significantly for each renewal at 17, 18, etc., until about 21 or so when they level off.

Carmine, when I was working at GM in 2005, this engineering problem was well known even then and was causing accidents. GM chose to ignore it due to the costs of repairing the problem. Don’t be an apologist for GM. They can apologise on their own. They should not have done this and should not have covered it up for years.

What you also seem to have conveniently left out is that when these faulty ignition switches turn off, so does the engine, power steering, ABS, ESC, and whatever. Many owners repeatedly experienced this in driving situations, and were very scared by it, even if they did avoid a serious “accident”.

There is no way of knowing whether all these irresponsible, young, unbelted, and drunk drivers would have crashed or not, when their ignition went off. The presumption has to be that they well might not have. We’ll never know for sure, but I sure wouldn’t want my ignition to suddenly turn off while scooting down a curvy country road at a good speed. Even without being young, drunk, and un-belted.

So don’t be so quick to assume that these drivers “caused” their crashes. Their actions may have contributed to some degree or another, but the burden of proof lies on GM’s faulty switches. Nobody deserves to have a car where the ignition suddenly goes off.

Yes the engine turns off. Yes the ps stops working but..The power steering is electric and barely provides any assist once the car is moving. I have shut off my car while driving to see if the steering became difficult to turn. There was almost zero difference. (Car and Driver also has a great article about this).

The is always enough vacuum left in the system to still have power brakes. The ESC is optional on these on the higher end models, so who is to say they even had that.

Lastly, they don’t even know if the ignition going into acc. mode was a result of part of the crash, or happened before the crash.

We can agree to disagree. You are overly apologetic towards the “victims” and I am apparently looking at this from a view that an impaired driver is responsible for all their own actions behind the wheel of a car by default.

No he is not overly apologetic for the victims. After getting to know a car over a period of time and the way it predictably “acts”, do you think anyone is prepared for a sudden irrational (and severely limiting) behavior by that car? Anyone?

Just imagine the moments of panic in the effected persons minds, regardless of the outcome of the event.

GM screwed the pooch on this one. That the known issue lay dormant for so long is malfeasance at least. The continued part number makes it criminal in my mind.

The closest I’ve been to this car was helping my wife into a rental a few years ago. It was black (just before everything became black), looked attractive in the current Chevy paradigm, and the interior looks very good as seen in your picture. The trunk seemed reasonably generous.

The one thing I didn’t check out was the utility of the back seat. I have no understanding or use for a four door car that cannot seat at least 4 (preferably 5) in reasonable comfort. The current Sentra and Corolla have good to very good rear seat space period, not just for their size class, and therefore a lot of utility.

Each year I check out cars at the auto show that could be on a future list. I typically start with a make’s largest offering and work down. The Impala has always been functional, but not stellar for its size. The current Malibu is so poor that my brain assumes the Cruze must be bad, and I never get to it.

Visually, the Cruze seems to have some heft for the compact class. If it is competent as a four person hauler, it really makes the Malibu a pointless offering – too similar in size and market space.

Since I am carping on two points, the Cruze and Malibu are too close in market space, and neither is competitive as a four person hauler, I pulled some select figures that may make the case. The height of a vehicle, and its layout can also have significant impact on utility, but the raw numbers support my thoughts pretty well…….

A compact car weighing over 1½ tons?? Wasn’t this what the roomy Shoebox Chevy weighed? And I thought my Civic (at ~2700lbs) was bloated; is this due to all the safety stuff, or merely the luxury people now demand in a supposedly budget market segment?

I continue to shun American-branded models until I see consistent predicted reliability stats (not just outliers here & there). This applies to Korean & German, too. To me, unreliability is a measure of the managerial disfunction in the organization that designed & built it.

You have a point. I’m not sure how roomy the back of a Civic feels, but curb weight of a 2014 EX (automatic is standard) is 2868. Rear seat legroom is 36.2.

The Accord Sport automatic (a personal favorite) is 3342 lbs (Just OVER the Malibu) with 38.5″ rear legroom that actually feels even bigger.

Honda is known for efficiency, but the knock is Noise, Vibration, Harshness (NVH). Dump a few hundred pounds of sound insulation into a Chevy Cruz, and that can account for a lot of the difference. NVH is one of my personal knocks on every Honda I’ve driven, but the Accord is so nice in the showroom, I’m going to have to give it a chance behind the wheel.

Our new Accord LX is a helluva lot quieter and more comfortable than the 2013 Civics we also own…but a lot of that has to do with the CVT. It is disconcerting to be driving along in suburban traffic, and the tach needle is sitting almost vertical, toodling along at 1100 RPMs, or 1800 RPMs at 60 MPH on the highway…I’m not sure how much I really trust the CVT to stay together for a lot of miles, but compared to a Civic revving its guts out to keep up with traffic, the experience is so tranquil.

Dave B

Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Appreciate the report on the Accord NVH.

I have Ford’s long criticized CVT in my 2005 Freestyle. The driving characteristics were heavily criticized, and Ford dropped it after three years of production in a somewhat low volume vehicle series. Ford tends to put a few golden parts in every vehicle, and replacing one of these obscure trannys is around $7,500. If mine goes, so does the car.

I have no problem with the CVT. Occasionally, it feels like a golf cart (sort of an electric vehicle sensation) with its lack of shifts. And, it never sounds very happy under hard acceleration – rare for me in a family station wagon. In general, it is a very roomy wagon, gets decent gas mileage, and in the big picture has been pretty reliable for 9 years. I keep the CVT properly serviced, and it is still going strong with 94,000 on it.

I don’t fear CVTs but would be curious what it would cost to replace one in an Accord. Honda’s transmission debacle in the Odyssey says they are not immune to screw ups.

You’re right; Honda has often erred on the side of sporty over quiet. The Civic is very sensitive to pavement; it seems quieter at 80mph on parts of I-10 than at 45 on a local road next to the AMARG area. I think their reverting to Mac struts in the past couple of generations might explain it. My old ’88 Accord was better here.

The reason I got the Civic instead of the Fit was its rear legroom which I perceived to be greater, so we can use it as another family hauler. The early Civics were torture chambers in back. This excuses their getting larger; the Fit is closer to the original Civic in concept.

CincyDavid

Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:49 AM

The thing that irritates me is that the carpet and floor mats in the 1990 and 1992 Accords were SO much nicer than what they put in the new cars. The interior plastics were nicer too.

jpcavanaugh

Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:58 AM

OTOH, I bought the Fit instead of a Civic because of its greater rear headroom, necessary for tall kids who occasionally sat in back when we bought the car. The Civic (and most other cars of that class) would not have worked for us due to headroom issues.

I have noticed how narrow the rear seat legroom looks in a Cruze, though I never tried it on for size. When my Aunt was shopping for a new car a few months ago, she tried my Jetta wagon on for size. With the front seat pushed back for my 6′ self, she had gangs of room in the back.

I shopped the Cruze and Focus before buying the Focus, solely on price. Cruzes were selling well and the Chevy dealer wouldn’t deal. I never actually drove one; I was saving that for when the numbers added up.

I just drove my Focus 1500 miles to DC and back, and it averaged 39-40 MPG, and I didn’t feel folded up when I got out of it. Good enough for me! I’m sure the Cruze would have been similar.

My wife just leased a ’14 Malibu, and it seems perfectly nice. A little boring, but most new cars are.

It’s interesting that you appear to like most things about the Cruze. It was developed by GM’s Daewoo subsidiary in Korea but gives off more of a European vibe than an Asian one. I may be reading you (Jason) wrong, but my impression is that you have been a traditional American-car buyer/owner/fan, enamored of large engines, big chassis, and not seeing much point or good in other offerings (very possibly due to natural lack of exposure). Please don’t take that critically, I’m just pointing out how I view it.

I believe you are also in your early 40’s, i.e. on the younger side of the traditional all-American demographic. Seeing as how you like the Cruze and appear impressed by the VW offerings, it (to me) really demonstrates the changing of the guard in a single data point. Ford has been demonstrating it for longer than GM, but the Euro-flavored stuff appears to be really taking hold of middle America now as well. Of course it has been selling, but it could have been argued that there hasn’t been much choice otherwise, but seeing your opinion expressed rather than a “I’ve always bought xxx, so my next car would also be xxx, no matter if I liked it or not or never researched the other choices in the market” makes it more compelling.

The Cruze has recently been introduced (over here) with a diesel offering – nothing new, GM has offered Cruze diesels in many other markets for years, just not here. It’s too bad they show no interest in bringing the wagon or the hatchback variants over, they may see incremental sales increases from those who don’t like sedans or crossovers (i.e. the people currently buying Jetta diesel wagons).

I haven’t driven a Cruze myself but do find it very attractive and priced well. Were I in that market I would certainly try one, if for no other reason than they offer a wonderful dark green color (something that is lacking at most other makers these days).

I’m not surprised that Jason rather liked the Cruze. It is targeted directly at folks who want a compact with the feel of a larger car (smooth, quiet, good ride, decent power, etc.)..The Cruze does that better than just about anything in its class. The fact that his rental had the harsh 18″ sport tires is unfortunate, as it spoils the best aspects of the Cruze, unless one really wants maximum cornering power. It’s rather stupid to even put these on Cruzes, as they’re all about the smoothness.

The Cruze has been a success, because of these qualities, which is what a healthy segment of the market, especially in the Heartland, are looking for. It’s a genuine “Chevy”, and has earned its success.

I have MXM4’s (Primacy) on my ATS, but mine are 40’s not 45’s and are run flat. I don’t find them overly rough riding, but then the ATS’s suspension may some refinements over the Cruze or I would like to think so. The ATS does not like washboard though, nor did my SRX with 20 inch 255/50 tires.

Jim, I read your comment this morning and have been thinking about it all day.

Yes, I have gravitated toward larger cars as I have grown older. In thinking about this, the reasons are two-fold.

One, so much of the current crop has poorly utilized interior room, as evidenced by my harping about consoles. I own a ’93 Buick Century, perhaps considered a compact at the time and its roughly the size of a current Ford Focus. Space utilization is great; it was the same in the various compacts my parents owned (K-car, Tempo, Omni) as I grew up.

Second, my experience with compact cars has often been associated with them being woefully underpowered. The first car in which my name was on the title was an ’89 Mustang powered by a 2.3. I wore out the carpet under the accelerator as it was so underpowered; during my ownership I swore I would never own another underpowered car. And I haven’t. Other than the ’96 Escort my wife had when we married, I haven’t owned another four-cylinder since and only two vehicles with a V6. Everything else was a V8 and I have not been at a loss for power. After several close calls when trying to pass people in four-cylinder powered cars during my youth, my avoidance of them has eliminated that worry.

However, the ability to squeeze power out of a small engine has vastly improved. The four-cylinder engines I have driven lately have all had decent power – I haven’t harpooned any of these rentals for being down on power. The problem is that usable space has been on the descendancy while power has been on the ascendency. I am seeking one outside of their trajectories intersecting, much to my obvious chagrin.

I am catching myself becoming a fan of the small displacement, high power engines. Earlier today I drove a new Ram 1500 with the 3.0 liter diesel; it was a revelation that I will soon share. I am eagerly awaiting Ford’s 2.7 liter gas engine.

Yes, the cars I have owned have all been American brands, but in the areas I have lived such has always been the norm. The cars I have pictured and written about in these pages do interest me; however, I have been seeking Japanese or European models of similar vintages for write-ups. None can be found. The closest I have come is a ’73 Mercedes from about a year ago.

Perhaps my thought process on cars has been tainted – or not. When I was seven, I asked my father about a Toyota my aunt and uncle owned. He told me “if you want a durable car, buy an American car.” He’s now 70 and when I asked him about this statement over the weekend, he had no recollection of it.

Yes, I do like the new Passat and Jetta, having test driven both. A large part of my liking them is their traditional styling, not the suppository on wheels some manufacturers are cranking out.

I’m not a fan of large engines and chassis so much as I am a fan of not being cramped and having ample power to pass and climb hills without downshifting two or three gears.

To me, cars are like people – all possess a certain degree of intrinsic goodness. There are those you can have fun with, those that are high maintenance, those that are reliable, and those in which no amount of exposure will facilitate any type of relationship.

Lastly, I have joked that I was born 40 years too late. That would have made my year of birth to be 1932; with my track record of childhood illnesses, I would have croaked by 1935!!!

Hey, thanks for answering, I appreciate it and the thought you put into it. I always try to understand the mindset behind the writing and obviously past experience to a large degree always affects it. We’re of similar age, but I was a kid in Europe and the California, in Europe we always had 4cylinder Audis and one Ford Consul (a V-4 if I remember correctly). Then over here a couple of Audis, a VW van, a couple of Japanese 4cylinders and then my dad gravitated towards mid-size American iron. I’ve personally owned pretty much every engine and body configuration except for a truck for some reason.

Your comments re: interior space are spot on, many cars are way too cramped inside these days and it’s not just small cars. Fort Taurus is one example of the big car outside / small car inside trend. A lot of older compact cars are the other way, such as the early to mid 80’s Civic, no center console, just a dash, a stickshift on the floor and tons of foot room. Maybe it has to do with safety concerns, i.e. if in a side impact wreck, maybe it’s better to have the legs sort of cocooned rather than able to flop all the way over to the passenger door, I don’t know. I do agree though that some center consoles are way too intrusive, i.e. my two 2008 Honda Civics had the end of their handbrake handle right where my kneecap liked to rest which made it quite uncomfortable. There was no good reason for that ergonomic mis-step, actually that was one car where an electronic E-brake would have been perfect.
Anyway, thanks!

It was developed by GM’s Daewoo subsidiary in Korea but gives off more of a European vibe than an Asian one.

Very few people I know are aware of this fact; in actuality, GM North America had very little to do with anything regarding the Cruze. GM Daewoo South Korea did the majority of design and engineering work, with Opel coming in to fine tune what they came up with toward the end. The more accurate predecessor to the Cruze is the Daewoo Lacetti (sold as the Suzuki Forenza/Reno in the US), not the Cobalt.

It’s difficult to discern whether the ignition switch thing is really that bad, or if it’s just another instance of piling on the United States’ favorite whipping boy for any corporate malfeasance. If GM didn’t have such a lengthy history of greed trumping safety concerns, it would be much easier to have sympathy for them.

With that aside, the Cruze is definitely an indicator that GM has finally ‘gotten it’ with regard to small cars. As nice as the new Impala seems to be, it looks like GM now understands that they need to pay as much attention to their entire line-up, and not just the big ‘ole vehicles that Americans seem to always love so much.

The media seems to be piling on GM the same way they piled on Toyota a few years back. However I am still waiting for the fake video by Brian Ross at ABC where he rigs a GM like he rigged aToyota…That should have been scheduled by now, maybe I missed it.

Yes, how is it that smokestack industries should have a monopoly on corporate irresponsibility? The news media is the Pot Calling The Kettle Black. They are not really in the news business, they’re in the entertainment business. The NY Times motto “All the News That’s Fit to Print” is one of the biggest howlers ever. What the editor cares about according to his philosophical commitments is what is fit to print.

Your piece and this car really demonstrate where GM seems to be – genuinly trying to be competitive, but there are reservations. Institutional dysfunction can derail the best of intentions and abilities at least in my experience as a fellow civil engineer having spent his career at Norfolk Southern railroad and my state DOT. Different dysfunctions, but the effect is the same.

I do the Sunday afternoon look at cars when the dealers are closed thing regularly and one thing I’ve really noticed is GM’s fit and finish is spot on across the lineup. Ford’s isn’t even on the same vehicle. My last round of car shopping had me looking at the CMax for a bit and my local dealer had 4 in stock – every single one of them had body panel fit issues that were different.

Go drive the Buick Verano, a very nice car for the money and worth the premium over the Cruze if you value a quiet ride.

I cannot believe that automakers are getting feedback from their customers that they like these low profile tires and lumpy rides. A replacement set of Michelins for that car could easily be a thousand bucks -it was on the Maxima I used to own.

Go drive that Verano, I’ll bet you really like it. The ride is still pretty lumpy, but it’s a quiet lumpy.

I agree, GM has come a long way in overall presentation. For years, I have only been willing to consider used GM cars and not new ones, because the fit and finish was so poor relative to the competition at a given price point. The first GM car to show a light at the end of the tunnel was the Alero, but they seemed to fall apart after 100k or so. The previous generation Malibu seems very well put together, as do the Cruze and the Verano. I would consider them if I were in the market for a new car. I think the trend of improvement exists across the board of late though, and could not give GM credit for leading it.

My main issue withe Crude is that it is a sedan while the Focus can be had as a hatchback. The rough ride is also a concern. When I buy a new car I am going to rent one and do a weekend test drive to get a feel for things.

What if the center console in the Ford Focus (and the Cruze) were designed for the right hand drive market and that is why we have problems with them in the U.S.

We get the Curze with a hatchback here in Australia. I read somewhere the Holden guys did the body. Hatches outsell sedans in this size class in Australia; to us, having no hatch would say they’re not serious.

One of my main beefs with the visual aspect ot the Cobalt was that the wheels and tires look too small…that gold example above is a perfect example. Having said that, I’m content with the 16 inch wheels on my new Accord LX…a coworker with a new Mazda 6 sliced one of his 19 inch tires this week…not only are there NONE in the country, it’s going to cost close to $300 once they locate a tire.

Roads in the midwest are so lumpy and bumpy it’s a wonder people aren’t destroying tires AND wheels left and right, especially tall wheels with rubberband tires.

My sister had an ’02 Protege5 which, while only on 16 inch wheels, carried 195-width tires with a 50-series sidewall, so basically rubberband tires. Not only did the firm damping constantly pound the wheels into the pavement, causing constant flats, the shocks failed by about 80k miles. That’s with Columbus, Ohio roads; I can’t imagine how bad it is in less well-off municipalities.

The 65 series tires on the LX-series of Honda Accords are so much softer riding than the 55-series tires on the fancier models. I could give a hoot about high performance tires, or high-speed-rated tires…i just want to be safe and comfortable on my 4 mile each way commute.

Our rural IL roads are horrible. If we’re lucky, they come around every couple months and throw a shovelful of gravel in the bigger potholes. I had to replace a wheel on my ’13 Beetle earlier this year when I hit one after an overnight snow – not only bent the rim, it bent the whole wheel off axis.

As a Mechanical Engineer who has spent some time in the auto industry, I can absolutely see how this whole ignition switch thing has happened. Between the interia and dysfunction of large companies, the amount of parts that go into a car and the number on the road I’m still amazed that cars even get made. Kind of like I’m amazed that the Space Shuttle ever worked at all. The media sh**storm whenever these things come to light is just that, and does no-one good.

I for one am glad that GM has a viable smallish car and I hope people buy them and have a good experience. Can’t understand the personal offence that some people have toward the bailout.

Alas, I don’t have mixed feelings about whether or not I’d buy one, after my direct experience with the plant, engineering, and purchasing staff of “Old GM” it would take quite a bit for me to consider one of their products. Never say never, but it would take quite a bit…

When I saw that this car review detoured into the ignition switch fiasco and the engineering/safety angle, the first thing I thought was, “Uh oh, the comments are going to get ugly.”. The second was, “I wonder what DougD would say about this.” 🙂

On April 19 I picked up a KDM 2011 LTZ (1.8 NA motor instead of Turbo) with 34,000 kms . I live very close to work, so I have only added less than 5000 kms since then. It had a problem with a stuck FI relay draining the battery , which I since have had fixed. The AS center performed a recall on an ABS related switch, other than that, no problems so far.
The seats make my bum ache on long trips (in Korea that means being stuck not moving in heavy traffic a lot). I’m unable to fairly comment on the ride since the PO put Eibach 1″ lowering springs on it, which in concert with the 245-45 VR-18s he put on, give it a somewhat bone jarring ride over broken pavement. The fuel economy, with the 1.8 and the 6-speed auto, is as good as my previous car, an 04 Daewoo Lacetti(Chevy Optra/Buick Excelle/Suzuki Forenza in other markets) with a 1.5 and a ZF 4-speed auto, plus the Cruze can get out of it’s own way.
I’ve owned a number of Daewoos (LeMans, Prince, Leganza in Saudi Arabia, Lanos when I returned here, Lacetti, and now this)
since 1997 because buying them used was a great value . But the Cruze is the first one that actually feels like an overall competent machine, and that I’m not giving up some important virtues. In other words, it feels like a real car. The Prince came close in quietness and solidity but was grossly underpowered. The Lanos, tough and reliable but crude. The Lacetti, plain vanilla milquetoast. Everybody knows what LeMans are like, and the Leganza was plain crappy. The icing on the cake was the PO spent a load of money on upgrades. In addition to the aforementioned lowering springs, ( I still have the stock ones), tires and rims, he put on a dual catback exhaust,
K&N intake, slide-over moonroof, aftermarket in-dash Nav (I-Navi, reportedly the best in Korea), rear seat heaters to match the fronts, LED tail lamps, front &rear dash cams, and a bunch of other little odds and ends. 2 years powertrain warranty left ( the factory service network isn’t catatonic over the mods, either). This was in addition to it being an LTZ, which means it has most of the factory goodies, including leather, and even Cruise Control, a feature which is useless in this country anyway.
All in all I’m happy with it, but I think I’m going to put the factory air box back on. I’m not sure low restriction but hot underhood air beats somewhat more constricted, but cooler (and quieter) outside air.
I got all the upgrade stuff for free basically.
One last thing, I would have preferred a spare tire,wrench & jack instead of a can of inflato-goop and a 12V pump.
And I still have to use my crappy old stick to the windshield GPS because the fancy in-dash one is all in Korean 🙁

A friends of mines mother bought a basic Cruze, and the level of equipment that comes on the base car is really impressive, pw, pdl, remote entry, trip computer, tilt and tele wheel, lots of airbags, OnStar, XM, nice upholstery, rear armrest, the level of equipment you get in a $18-19,000 Cruze is really impressive, when you consider a decade ago you could still get a crank window, no CD baser Cavalier.

The Cruze competes on price here in Soviet Canuckistan. Right now, you can get 0% for 84 months on any 2014 GM car. The lease on a loaded Cruze is only like $260 a month, the lowest in the business, so GM is yet again playing with residual values, the reason for the last belly-up incident. There are also several option credits. A base one can be had for less than $200. Even the leases are at 0%. Yet the Civic and Elantra handily outsell it here.

The Cruze is an excellent used buy. In three years, the car will lost 50% of its value. Since a 2012 is the same as a 2015, you’s be crazy to buy new.

With that kind of financing, I would take the new one over the used one, full warranty, no surprises, plus with no interest its like buying it for cash and not using your own cash, how can you go wrong?

True, but when a low km 2012 can be had for half the new price, it’s still a much better buy used as the finance savings won’t be $12,000. Just buy a GM PP.

CARMINE

Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:33 PM

But you miss that intoxicating new car smell….

Canucknucklehead

Posted August 14, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Very true, new stuff is very fun, which is why I bought new cars when I was young. The Cruze strikes me as a car that would hold together well. I drove an RS with 34,000 km on it and it was like new, inside and out, a GM lease return. With a three year GMPP the dealer wanted $18k for the car, a 2013 model. Good deal for a car that was $27,000 new.

I have driven a lot of these as rentals and they are a solid unit, although obviously overweight. The 1.4 turbo is much better than the 1.8 na motor.

When driving the turbo model, what surprised me was the RPM’s the motor is turning. It makes me wonder how long the engine will last, especially when it gets past warranty.

I have been car shopping for my wife. We have tried them all and the best so far is the Mazda 3 Sport GX 2.0 automatic. In a league of its own, totally outclassing the ancient Cruze. The 2015 Golf was second, the Civic third, but all three are very nice cars.

If we wants something reliable, she doesn’t want the Golf. She seems to want a Euro style car based on her choices. I’d go with the Focus or 3 if she insists on that type of car. Although I am nervous about the 3 considering how much the last generation rusted, especially in Canada. A Civic is a good compromise between sportiness and practicality. As you pointed out yourself, a used Cruze is a screaming deal, and although it probably won’t be as reliable as the Civic, it will easily beat a Golf.

We don’t have any rust issues here on the West Coast as the weather rarely freezes, so no need for road salt. It also gives us smooth roads.

The Focus is not worth the money they want for it. We had one when Mrs C’s car was in for a one month collision repair. It’s a nice car but the loaded model we had was not worth what Ford was asking for it. The lower trips have crappy materials. Too bad, the rental Focus we had in Germany recently had much better materials. But then again, Germans pay more for cars. The Civic is for sure the safe bet and it is a very nice car for the money.

When Mrs C finds the car she wants, any desire of mine will be irrelevant.

That’s a mean-spirited comment. What do you know about these specific 12 folks? This is the kind of comment that’s not welcome here: disparaging other people, especially when you have no specific information about them to do so. I’m considering deleting your comment.

If the Cruze were built in Oshawa or Fairfax or just about any other GM plant, I’d seriously consider buying one if I were in the market for a compact. It is night and day better than the Cobalt and the the diesel option is yet another sign that GM has made great strides in pulling its collective head out of its posterior.

It’s not directed at the individuals. It’s the longstanding culture of indifference and poor quality in Lordstown that can be blamed on both labor and management there.

Over the past few years GM has closed plants like Shreveport and Janesville that generally had good reputations for quality, yet somehow Lordstown was saved.

It has nothing to do with what anyone looks like. It’s the traditional culture of confrontation by both salaried and UAW at that particular plant. GM has finally given them a car to be proud of. It doesn’t change the fact that Lordstown still has one of GM’s higher manufacturing defect rates. Last data I saw showed them in the bottom third of GM’s North American plants.

Supposedly labor relations have greatly improved, and I hope that’s the case. The Cruze is too good of a car to be saddled with a legacy of 40 years’ worth of junk coming off that line.

It’s one thing to be a UAW hater. I was a Teamster at one time, I get the vitriol. But you can’t apply a blanket statement to the Lordstown crew without understanding the conditions that led up to the strikes and the revolt.

There are plenty of places on the web to read up on the conditions the workers were subjected to in the 1970’s, I won’t re-hash them here. But the point is the workforce is different now, the product is different now. If we judged everything by the standards of 40 years ago, then we’ve made no progress.

Read the history about what happened at Lordstown back then. See the current product today. The workers of 2014 are almost two generations removed from the workers of 1974. You can’t condemn them for the sins of people in the past.

Old Pete

Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:54 AM

Lotta sense there, geozinger. Whenever management and labor are fighting, quality always suffers. And it’s eye-opening to think we’re two generations removed from 1974.
But I can also understand someone who’s had bad stuff from there in the past not wanting to chance a repeat of the experience.

I have had several relatives who were autoworkers…production line work must be the worst job imaginable. Can’t fault them for assembling a bad product, unless they do something to sabotage the process. Bad engineering leads to bad product.

I don’t expect see read, or see, this sort of stuff at C.C. I don’t like to see my former brothers, and sisters, {yeah that’s union talk} insulted by anyone. Especially by those that have never set foot inside an auto plant.

I spent 36+ years of my life working on the GM Oshawa plant floor. From Stamping, to final assembly, every aspect of car build. My last ten years were spent as a “dock tech”. I worked directly with all levels of management, hourly, and salary. Some were great guys, some were not.

I’ve said this at TTAC, and I will say it here.

In the modern auto assembly facility, the individual worker has little, or zero impact, in final build quality. 99.9 percent of the workers do the best job they can, with the materials, and tools, they are given.

@Paul. I hope I have not over stepped the level of civility we have here. If I have, just delete it. I don’t comment much, but I read CC everyday..

This post has obviously tapped into a well of thought that I had not thought would happen but perhaps should have anticipated.

I guarantee my next article will be as controversial as a pile of rock.

geozinger

Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Jason: Don’t hold anything back. We may or may not agree with you, but I think the exchange of ideas here has been good.

If we all thought the same, acted the same, lived the same, what good would that do? We occasionally need someone to challenge our prejudices, our preferences. To be able to see another perspective broadens our horizons.

Viva la difference!

Old Pete

Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:59 AM

Jason, I kinda suspect the guys here have been looking for the opportunity to vent their feelings about that recall business. I think your choice of subject matter just provided the vehicle.

Aaron65

Posted August 15, 2014 at 4:14 AM

Rocks? How dare you slam rocks, Jason? They’re just as controversial as anything about a Cruze!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

Jason Shafer

Posted August 15, 2014 at 5:47 AM

Geozinger and Old Pete: I agree with what you say. It all goes back to the old adage, and what I tell those I oversee at work, that I don’t care what you say, but I do care about how you say it. That is what has happened in this thread. Yes, the conversation has been quite vibrant, just not always in the best direction! 🙂

The first 15 seconds of this clip explain a lot; that combination of “what the heck” and “oh shit” is pretty close as he sure didn’t intend to hit a gusher!

I checked out the Cruze at the auto show the last couple years. Really appreciate the taller greenhouse, much better visibility that a lot of US and Asian cars now, almost as good as a VW.

One year they had the sport model on display with the 6sp stick. Liked it a lot. But they don’t offer a wagon or hatchback verson in the US. Fail.

On the recall issue, while Barra is an engineer, GM hasn’t had an engineer in charge for a significant period since Ed Cole retired. They are both GMI alums.

Most of the GM honchos have been accountants. The usual exeutive suite occupant in the US is either an accountant or a salesman. Accountants and salesmen are sociopaths. Accountants only care about profit. Salesmen only care about getting the sale. The easiest way for the salesman to get his sale is to have a lower price. The accountant gets that lower price by cutting costs.

We old geezers remember the Ford Motor internal documents that came to light in the 70s, where the accountants told the salesmen it would be cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to spend a few dollars to make the Pinto gas tank safer.

A crappy salesman sells on price…someone in sales who is worth a hoot sells on benefits and value. I recently toured the Batesville Casket plant in Batesville IN…they build beautiful caskets, at a premium price, but the value that the company brings to the table, for the funeral director, and the customer family, make it all worth while. Great product, great support, great technology.

I’d much rather have a nice product to sell than a cheap nasty one…statistically, a family will deal with a funeral home and/or cemetery every 7 years, so I may work with the same family 5 or more times in my career…I refuse to sell on price. Let the bottom feeders to that sort of stuff.

Caskets are rather a special case: the family wants to give Aunt Sophie a good send off.

I spent the 80s and early 90s in sales. I lost count of how many people came in the door and the first thing out of their mouth was “what’s the cheapest…?” Even when they don’t say it, a lot of people are thinking that way.

To tie this back into the car discussion, I worked for an old-school funeral director back in the 1980s, and he would tell people “your dad drove a Chevrolet his whole life, shouldn’t he spend eternity in the Cadillac of caskets?”

That line worked with a lot of people…grief and guilt, ya know.

Imperialist

Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:55 AM

David, thought you’d like to see an ad I wrote for your competition!

Steve

Posted August 14, 2014 at 1:59 PM

That line worked with a lot of people…grief and guilt, ya know.

Grief, guilt, and a salesman eager to make money off it.

The casket business is a scary place to be right now

When my Grandmother died in 79, she got the whole 9 yards: casket, vault, service at the funeral home, motorcade to the cemetary with hearse and limos, a graveside service,

When my Grandfather died in 94, he got casket, vault, service at the funeral home. It was the middle of the winter, so no motorcade to the cemetary.

When my Mother, Aunt and Uncle each died in the last 5 years. each was cremated, buried in a little plastic box with a graveside service.

My will says “cremate and scatter”

So….maybe we will see the end of the coachbuilt hearse like we have seen sedan based ambulances replaced by trucks.

The casket business is a scary place to be right now, given how many folks are choosing to cremate…alkaline hydrolysis is the next “new thing”, AKA flameless cremation.

Ed Stembridge

Posted August 14, 2014 at 1:44 PM

So-called “green burials” are on the rise as well, and that’s the instruction I’ve left for my wife – “Buy a new refrigerator and bury me in the box.” Not an eco person, just don’t see any use in putting $10,000 in a hole in the ground.

JP

Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:44 AM

I’ve got a mulch pile in the back…that’s my final target!

geozinger

Posted August 16, 2014 at 6:13 AM

Oh man… I was hoping for a Viking funeral… Not very environmentally friendly at all!

I have done quite a lot of sales in my life and in my experience, product sells. If you have a really good product and business model, customers will want your product and buy it. The salesman only gives product knowledge, conditions of sale and alternatives. He is the face of the product.

Money plays no favours: the cars with the best resale have the best quality. The cars with the lower quality rely on something other than engineering to sell the cars. These days, it’s incentives and low interest loans. The cheaper the financing, the crappier the car.

When I was at GM, the salesmen were beaten like dogs, paid a pittance and fired in droves. The higher-up could never realise we had terrible product in those days, and everybody knew it.

geozinger

Posted August 15, 2014 at 5:03 AM

I’m not sure about your sales experience with GM Canknucklehead, but it sounds very similar to mine selling Toyotas for South East Toyota distributors. We weren’t paid sh!t and if you didn’t make quota, you were out.

I voluntarily left the Toyota store to go back into printing.

I think your assertion about the business model is more accurate. There was a Dodge dealer back in the 80’s in Western Pennsylvania who placed customer service above all else. They were great to deal with and conquered a lot of business in the wider area. They did all that despite being in a small town and having a tiny facility. For most folks buying this kind of a durable good, it’s combination of product, price and service.

It seems typical of big car makers. They have all the money in the world, but they choose to save money by leaving out a certain feature that would help save a driver’s or a passenger’s life. That’s inexcusable. It’s unforgivable.

Hatches don’t seem to sell in the US. Compare sales of the VW Golf to the Jetta sedan. Ford got props from hatch lovers for offering the bodystyle on the Focus and Fiesta, and the take rate seems to be good, so maybe we’ll see a resurgence of hatches, someday.

There is a Cruze hatch in other markets, so it’s not like they saved on the design/tooling. This is my beef with the Civic also. Not everyone wants to buy a crossover to have some decent carrying capacity.

I’ve always liked the looks of these and am glad to hear they drive well. I had completely forgotten about the Cobalt.

The new Impala is nice too, slit-style windows and all. The new Malibu is what perplexes me — such a let down compared to the one just prior. Everyone seem to dislike it which makes you wonder how GM could have blown the call so badly. They must have shit their pants when they saw the Fusion.

I know that granting the Fusion styling supremacy seems to be universal but as soon as I saw a new Fusion on the street, my first reaction was, What is all the fuss about? To me it looks a bit lumpen but the absolute deal breaker is the riot of cut lines despoiling the rear end. I much preferred the previous Fusion. I liked it’s clean lines. I must, however, agree with you about the Malibu. The previous generation was such a subtle beauty, why did they have to spoil it.

I sh!t my pants when I saw the first new Fusion, but not for the same reasons you may suspect. I thought it was the worst bad imitation of an Aston Martin I’d seen anywhere… Like a Chinese copy of the DB7, but with more doors and a huge belly.

The new Malibu is a definite miss, but the new Fusion leaves a fair amount to be desired, too. At least from an exterior design standpoint.

I’m really tired of people beating on the Cobalt. Or at least ALL Cobalts.

I had a 2006 Cobalt SS I sold in 2010 with 40k miles. The only problem I had was that every few weeks, it would hesitate and then surge when moving from a complete stop. Dealer could not duplicate…or fix.

So it was not perfect. However, it was the best-driving, most-fun-to-drive car I have ever owned. It was more of a GTI than my old VW GTI, vastly better than my earlier Saab 9-3 Turbo, and better than my 91 3-series. Even if it had FWD. The steering, shifter, and clutch felt good and worked well, Recaro seats were fantastic, the supercharged 4 with ‘only’ 205 hp felt like a V8 and sounded great.

Yes, the back seat was a hassle, and the spoiler was chintzy. Oh, and I had no key issues.

I miss driving it.

I drove several rental Cruze 14 Turbos, including one with leather seats (which were very good). It’s a good car.

If GM had the vision to drop a 2.0 liter turbo or supercharged engine, Recaro seats, and imbue the car with the Cobalt SS’s ride and handling, GM would have a world beater.

I’ve never driven a Cobalt but have a Chevy HHR which shares the same platform. It was a rental and I was surprised at how solid and refined it felt. If the Cobalt drove the same way that would have been an impressive little car.

Around 2008 I rented a Cobalt, and found it was leap years ahead of my 1995 Grand Am. It would take something extraordinary to get me to even consider a GM car, but I thought the Cobalt and HHR to be respectable vehicles. It may not have been class leading, and there’s no vehicle that’s going to please everyone, but I’m surprised at the amount of dislike for this car. Rather like the Dodge Avenger.

I seriously considered a Cobalt SS when I was in the market for a smaller car. It checked off a lot of boxes: Turbo engine, manual trans mandatory (on the coupe), good handling, overall a good looking package and it was a 2 door. Wouldve went Dodge SRT-4 no contest, but 4 door sedan = FAIL for me. I went with a PT Cruiser GT…good compromise and kept it Mopar.

It’s not “bloat”. New cars are designed with larger wheel openings so that larger wheels and tires look “right”, not huge. The Chevelle was designed for 14″ wheels. That’s the difference. Things change, over time. In the 20s, the had huge wheels too.

But the ride quality from very-low profile tires is worse, regardless of their diameter: 24″ or 30″.

Just my uneducated theory, but a Cruze is 58″ tall, a 70 Chevelle is 53 inches tall. I think its the height that really changes the proportion of how big a set of wheels looks on a car. I’m not sure the wheel wells have grown much really, overall tire height still remains in the 25-28 inch range for the majority of cars.

Back in the ’80s in the Industrial Design program at Ga. Tech, every car concept we drew had huge wheels/tires, despite the typical car at the time having from 13″ to 15″, sometimes 16″ wheels. It only took 25 years for the industry to catch up!

Ed: I went through the Industrial Design school at Kent State University about the same time you did. It was not uncommon for early sketches to have some unusual proportions, but who would ever imagine the evolution of cars the way they did?

I remember when the 1995+ Cavalier Z24 and Sunfire GT came out with 16″ wheels! That was some serious rubber!

Now 18″ wheels + tires look tiny on some cars. I was somewhat disappointed when my 2009 G6 came with 17″ wheels and tires; the others I’d driven had the 16″ wheels and handled just fine. Plus, the 16’s are an order of a magnitude less expensive to replace!

Last but not least a GM Ad showing the FWD Chevrolet Cruze and the related Buick Verano. The Cadillac ATS which were identical in size to both the Buick Verano and Chevrolet Cruze is an exactly different car based on a different RWD Chassis/Platform.

I had one as a rental out in California a year ago or so. I didn’t think it was a bad little car, actually it ran pretty decent. The one I had had the fake manual option which was kind of fun to mess around with though nothing like a real stick.

Would I rent one? Yep, pretty good for a rental. Would I buy one? Hell no, not because I thought it was a POS but just because I hate having to drive little cars. I would rather get a used big sedan than a new compact.

My Uncle whose first car was a Desoto also owned an original Dart, 1980 Olds Diesel, Rover SD1, A ’91 Merc 300SE and now leases a Taurus. Rented the Cruze LTZ in June and said it was a nice car but the ride was harsh and the seats rather uncomfortable. Drove it from NYC to Chicago and back again. Not great at absorbing the bumps but, much, much better than the bone-jarring Avenger he had last year, he noted. He works at a company that provides him transportation and now has him in a Chevy Captiva which he also likes and says is more comfortable than the Cruze. He drove the 300SE into the ground (over 400k on the clock) but said it was the greatest car he had ever owned and nothing compares, but he did love his Dart.

Why all the hate for the Cobalt? As far as Im concerned, the Cruze is a MAJOR downgrade. If you want to compare apples to apples (4 door sedans, no performance options) then for me its a wash. An ex g/f had a cobalt sedan and it was ok for an econobox.

This is a downgrade because if you max out your options, the Cobalt could be had in coupe form and in SS trim, 280 hp with the turbo, that’s before you start doing upgrades. A sedan only body means “Do not pass go, do not collect $200” for me, so even if there was a performance model, its dead in the water. Ive seen coupe concepts based on the Cruze, why not bring them out? Cobalt coupes are thick on the ground, so the ‘2 doors don’t sell’ argument doesn’t hold water. They don’t sell as many, but profit is profit….that profit is being made at Scion, Honda and Kia right now. Even the 5 door hatch which we don’t get here would be acceptable if it had an SS variant. See Focus ST. Dodge is shooting themselves in the foot with the sedan only Dart for the same reasons….

I agree that the lack of a coupe is a big miss on the part of Chevrolet, there has been a small 2door Chevrolet in the line up since the Corvair coupe in 1960 and the loss of a performance option is a downer too, but the refinement on the Cruze is overall much nicer than the Cobalt. I think there was fear of a Cruze coupe eating into base Camaro sales, a baser Cruze sedan is like 18K, maybe a little more for a coupe, too close to the cheap Camaro’s starting 24K base price?

I’m a coupe fan myself, and I always thought the Cobalt coupe was a handsome little car. There used to be such a selection of coupes in the Chevrolet line, at it peak there was the Cavalier, Camaro and Monte Carlo coupe, now they are just down to one.

Why all the hate for the Cobalt? As far as Im concerned, the Cruze is a MAJOR downgrade.

Get real.. You yourself even pointed out, in your above post, you were looking at a coupe SS but bought a PT GT instead. Then you wonder why they don’t make coupes anymore. Put your money where your mouth is. Apples to apples indeed.

If an SRT-4 coupe were available, then it would’ve been a done deal. If it weren’t for the PT available in GT trim, then Id have looked harder at the SS or a GTI. Im a lifelong Mopar guy, so that’s a huge consideration. I can see the usefulness benefit of a 5 door hatch or wagon for a minimal sacrifice in style. Sedans are a HUGE sacrifice in the looks department for no real gain in utility. Im guilty of a bit of brand loyalty but it only goes so far. A total revulsion to sedans trumps that.

Turbo Mopars are familiar to me, and a proven performer with the right tweaks. GM is a total question mark and swapping brands is a bit of a bridge too far when I can get 90% of what Im after from Ma Mopar.

They do make coupes still. But its becoming a stretch for anyone on a ‘real’ income to get the good stuff. The Cobalt SS and Neon SRT-4 were available in the low $20Ks. A base Challenger or Camaro with a V6 is mid to high 20s, low $30Ks for a 5.7 hemi challenger. Big price gap there. I never consider base versions of ANYTHING.

As Carmine pointed out, the makers are afraid of cannibalization. And I get that to a point. That’s definitely what the bean counters in Detroit try to sell. Based on my conversations with other enthusiasts, given a choice between a fwd coupe with a turbo 4 cyl and handling suspension vs a base model muscle car with a V6 under the hood…gimme that turbo. That has options for hotrodding, and gives me what I want at a bargain price..possibly cheaper insurance. The base muscle car is all show and not so much go. And has a lot less available to make it better. Anyone who looks at a car as a platform to upgrade understands that. And that’s a factor in why the tuner crowd (both ricers and true hotrodders) tend to go import.

See though to me, I sort of lean the other way, I think the $24K RWD 323hp V6 6 speed manual base Camaro is a heck of a deal which could further be tweaked if you wanted to make it more hardcore, but it’s amazing to me that the base F-body is giving you HP numbers that used to be reserved for the SS and WS6 versions. I always did like the turbocharged SS Cobalt though.

MoparRocker74

Posted August 15, 2014 at 10:34 PM

No doubt V6’s have come a long way. The Mopar Pentastar, GM 3.6 and the Ford 3.5 are all impressive for what they are. But in the end, Im very biased against the design since they just scream ‘MINIVAN MOTOR’ to me. Yeah, I know what was accomplished with the Buick GNX, and I know that the odd-fire Buick 225 was a major steroid shot to Kaiser-era Jeeps. But still, I just don’t like them. 6 in a row, if you wanna go. Is that completely ‘logical’…hell no. But like every other gearhead, I like what I like, I don’t like what I don’t like.

Normally aspirated engines are very dependent on the aftermarket to respond if you want to upgrade them. V6’s tend to get upstaged by turbo 4s, straight 6’s or V8s in that department. It tends to have a ‘base engine’ stigma associated with it.

But you make a good point, the current base Camaro would run rings around a 3rd gen F body with the top V8…a Ram Air Firebird might be competitive. Impessive for sure.

These days I spend way too much time driving rental cars far from home. I’ve walked by the Cruze more than once when I spot a Focus or an Elantra in the lineup. Sounds like maybe I should give one a try next time.

I saw this post earlier in the day and was too busy to comment until now.

What to say… My daughter’s live-in boyfriend (it wouldn’t be right to call him a son-in-law) had a Cruze Eco up until this spring; I borrowed it this winter when I had a couple nights’ repair stay for my Aztek. We had record cold and snow this year in Western Michigan, but the little Cruze with the worn out tires was a trooper in our deep snow. I realize the Eco model is a mix of the LS and the LTx versions of the car (WRT to equipment), but I found the handling to be exemplary in the snow and wet roads. The turbo motor seemed to have enough power when necessary, and the mileage was good, even under my heavy foot. The six speed tranny shifted well, even when left out over night in our sub-zero temps. The cabin was a little snug with the common huge console issue all cars seem to suffer from lately, but not unbearable. If I were paying for a car, a Cruze Eco would be on my list, for sure.

I have to give some love to my homeys, as I’m from the Mahoning Valley where the USDM Cruze is built. I know I’m known as the king of the Cockroaches of the Road® for my defense of the J-bodies and my home town product. But the Cruze is a class above anything else that GM has produced in this size category in a long, long time.

I really believe you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least considering a Cruze if you were in the market for a car that size. Stick with the 1.4L turbo models and you’ll be fine. My GM car is an Epsilon of some stripe (actually a Regal), but if I were forced to go to a smaller car, this would be it.

These fairly popular in Aotearoa I see quite a few about I followed one through the world famous Manawatu gorge on Wednesday the guy driving was having fun and actually maintaining the posted limit so their handling ability cant be too bad he was staying in his own lane too something many cars cant achieve on that stretch at 80kmh, by the badging it was a diesel apparently they have equivalent performance to the 2L gas version dunno I havent driven one yet.

Last year we visited Fort Lauderdale, Miami and the Everglades. For part of our week, we had a Chevrolet Cruze rental car. I was impressed with the car. It was comfortable and quiet. It felt solid without feeling ponderous.

In 2007, during a trip to Texas, we had a Chevrolet HHR rental. It was a good freeway cruiser, but it was dull, lifeless and ponderous around town. (Some of the interior trim bits were quite cheesy, too.) The Cruze struck me as a HUGE improvement over the HHR.

I’ve had the car as a rental for long treks across the endless expanses of West Texas and I never grew weary of the machine, unlike the experience of covering the same real estate in a Sentra, which made me grateful for the seat belts, otherwise I would have slid off of the seat during right turns. If I wasn’t such a tight-fisted curmudgeon adverse to car payments, I’d trade my 225K, 17-year old Camry in on one.

Just as I posted the Chevrolet Cruze’s niche’ predecessors, here are the Buick Verano and Cadillac ATS predecessors as well which have exact close ties to the Chevrolet Cavalier based FWD “J” Cars. So all three Subcompact Sedans have J Car parentage.

All 3 Cars are in the compact size range. The Cadillac ATS measured in at 182.8″, The Buick Verano measured at 183.9″ and the Chevrolet Cruze at 181.0″. The Buick Verano and the Chevrolet Cruze both shared the same FWD GM Delta II Platform. The identical sized Cadillac ATS is based on a much different RWD GM Alpha Platform. The Cadillac ATS may share some size and little design similarities with both the Chevrolet Cruze and the Buick Verano, but the ATS is an entirely different car built on a different chassis/platform. These differences were very much similar in analogy to the 2014 Toyota Corolla 4 Door Sedan which is a FWD and the 2014 Lexus IS 4 Door Sedan which is a RWD. Almost identical in design and compact sizes but otherwise two different cars based on their architectures.

Yup…I torture myself looking at the Opel site from time to time, and the German VW site….and look what VW sticks a SEAT badge on…a little more panache than a Golf, but not as far out there as a Scirocco.

Opel Astra 5 door hatch, another GM C-segment car. GM has decided that Opel will be their only brand in Europe, a wise decision. Presenting Chevrolets as low-budget cars turned out to be a complete failure.

I just rented one of these as well. <4k miles on the odometer, Cruze LTZ with RS package and the 1.4T. Surprisingly loaded and luxurious for a rental, even with keyless start and leather(ette); I wonder if Chevy is dumping overstock into fleet channels.

I put about 2k miles on it in just over 2 days, driving most of the way across the country. It was reasonably comfortable, but I hate the engine/transmission combo. I don't know if it's the low torque from the small displacement motor (before the turbo kicks in), the throttle mapping, or just the ridiculously high curb weight for a car this size, but this car had a disconcerting lag when stepping on the gas at low speeds, followed by an abrupt non-linear surge in acceleration despite a constant right-foot throttle input. This was most noticeable coming off red lights or driving in slow traffic, and fluctuated between annoying and dangerous. It was especially bad when I would attempt to change lanes in heavier traffic and hit the gas, and would still end up cutting off the car behind me while I waited for the engine to react. Manually selecting the gear did not fix the issue either.

And it's not as if I'm comparing it to some high torque V8 muscle car. My daily is a 20 year old VW with the 2.0 gasser – certainly slower 0-60 and by every other metric, but at least it delivers its limited power in a predictable and timely fashion. Perhaps the manual transmission Cruzes are more responsive? Either way, I'm in the market for a new small to midsize sedan in this class and have crossed the Cruze off the list.

I will grant that the Cruze was infinitely better than the 1.8L Sonic hatchback that I had initially rented and eventually had to swap out. At least the Cruze's cruise control was willing to downshift up a minor incline as necessary to maintain speed; the Sonic would insist on attempting to lug up hills in 6th, dropping 5 mph below the set speed before downshifting and then proceeding to hunt back and forth incessantly between 5th and 6th, forcing me to manually intervene.

Overall MPG was also a huge disappointment in both cars (as calculated myself, using actual odometer/gas pump data, as opposed to the onboard computers' optimistic estimates). On mainly highway/interstate driving keeping within 5 mph of the posted limit at all times (via cruise control) and with conservative AC use, the penalty box Sonic only averaged 33 mpg (the computer claimed 39 mpg!), and the Cruze was closer to 32mpg, far below it's claimed 38mpg highway estimate.

For what it’s worth, my 14 Jetta wagon with the 2.5/auto had a hesitation exactly like that when I first got it. Now I don’t notice a lag, so either I got used to it, or the computerized throttle had adjusted itself to my driving. I had noticed that seemingly every R&T,C&D,MT tester commented about the lag, but the owner’s feedback on Edmund’s has few if any comments about the lag, confirming my impression that it eaither goes away or you get used to it, after driving the car for a while.